That's all fine and dandy, but you are wrong. It most certainly IS illegal to _REQUIRE_ someone's SSN to do business. Sure, it's usually also legal to refuse to do business with someone for whatever reason, but that does NOT mean that it is NOT illegal to _REQUIRE_ someone's SSN to do business.
For the love of fuck, please get your logic centre checked out.
He's not falsely advertising anything. That info is very available and obvious. Besides, it's MSD(evelopers)N. Anyone who thinks that MS is in to giving out tens of thousands of software licenses to anyone with $375 in their pocket is on crack.
You should really give a current rev of VS before comparing a 10 year old product to a current version of eclipse.
I don't need eclipse to make a standalone dialog EXE. So I don't use it. (wtf was that point about?)
Look, VS 2005 does web development like you've never seen. It works with many different languages, pick your poison. Who cares if eclipse does java? How the fuck does that invalidate another IDE? Yeah, all VS does is syntax highlighting. Please. One of the best new features of VS 2005 are it's refactoring tools. Source control is built in and highly flexible. What about the fact that eclipse works with CVS makes VS a piece of crap? Really, please explain that.
You said it yourself, and I quote: "Working with Eclipse feels, now, the same that Visual Studio felt like back in 1995."
I'd be a wee bit unimpressed, if not down right PISSED THE FUCK OFF if I had to use VS from 1995. (Did it even exist as VS in 95? not sure) How the hell that gets translated into 'eclipse roxors, vs suxors' I'll never know.
I'm not condemning you for being a java coder that has a preference for eclipse. I do have news for you though: Not all programming is java. Not all programming is done in eclipse. Eclipse is not the perfect solution for all programming tasks.
How's about you introduce a little gray into your life instead of the strict black/white diet you appear to subscribe to?
If someone is interested in designing software, VS is a suitable abstraction point to be introduced to. If someone is interested in programming, this is just plain wrong, period.
ALL programmers need to be introduced to language first and formost. If they aren't, well are they really being trained to be programmers?
VS is a horrible starting point for learning how to program. VS is a wonderful starting point for learning how to design software.
Besides, this is nothing new. Think of how many 'programmers' that are out there that couldn't code themselves out of a box because they learned how to 'code' using VB6. It's not that they aren't good at what they do, it's that they have learned how to design, now how to program.
Pick your profession, then pick the appropriate tools.
I think the correct term would be meth, not crack.
Either way, it is scary that your comment would be concidered funny. Meth is not funny. Neither is Crack. There is no bright side to either. They are killers plain and simple.
The simple act of taking something that exists, but sucks, and making something similar that actually works, and well, would most certainly fall under the category of innovating.
It is a very neat experience to go there, especially for the kids. (Don't take your merc or bimmer though, you'll be pissed at the monkeys if you do;)
However, it's also sad and depressing in a way. It's certainly better than seeing them cooped up in cages at a zoo, but at the same time, it is not a natural environment.
For true re-introduction of these species in North America, we would absolutely _have_ to provide an enourmous amount of space for a proper reserve to have any chance of these animals being able to exist 'in the wild'. IE, independant of reliance on humans to survive at the basic level.
Another point to be made is that we do have mega-fauna in North America that I would like to give this chance to well before I would want to see us importing animals from other continents. The North American mega-fauna that went extinct here is NOT the same as the mega-fauna that currently exists in other parts of the world.
It would be wonderful to have a massive wild reserve in North America where Grizzlies, Wolves, Buffalo and numerous other endangered North American species could actually exist in their natural state devoid of human pressure.
Yes, that is the point of the story, sort of, except CNet washed it's hands of providing any sort of reasonable answer and instead attempts to create a problem, and then lay blame for said problem at the feet of Google, while using it's CEO to make an example.
CNet missed the boat.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I'll expound upon it now:
With great power comes great responsibility.
We ALL now have great power, NOT just google as CNet would lead you to believe. (That is what the internet provides ALL of us)
Thus, we ALL have great responsibility, INCLUDING CNet.
CNet washed it's hands of taking ANY responsibility.
The other option is to get rid of the internet. Which view would you like to take?
Slashdot Mirror
That's all fine and dandy, but you are wrong. It most certainly IS illegal to _REQUIRE_ someone's SSN to do business. Sure, it's usually also legal to refuse to do business with someone for whatever reason, but that does NOT mean that it is NOT illegal to _REQUIRE_ someone's SSN to do business.
For the love of fuck, please get your logic centre checked out.
He's not falsely advertising anything. That info is very available and obvious. Besides, it's MSD(evelopers)N. Anyone who thinks that MS is in to giving out tens of thousands of software licenses to anyone with $375 in their pocket is on crack.
I just did the toin coss myself, anyone want his PIN? ;)
You should really give a current rev of VS before comparing a 10 year old product to a current version of eclipse.
I don't need eclipse to make a standalone dialog EXE. So I don't use it. (wtf was that point about?)
Look, VS 2005 does web development like you've never seen. It works with many different languages, pick your poison. Who cares if eclipse does java? How the fuck does that invalidate another IDE? Yeah, all VS does is syntax highlighting. Please. One of the best new features of VS 2005 are it's refactoring tools. Source control is built in and highly flexible. What about the fact that eclipse works with CVS makes VS a piece of crap? Really, please explain that.
You said it yourself, and I quote: "Working with Eclipse feels, now, the same that Visual Studio felt like back in 1995."
I'd be a wee bit unimpressed, if not down right PISSED THE FUCK OFF if I had to use VS from 1995. (Did it even exist as VS in 95? not sure) How the hell that gets translated into 'eclipse roxors, vs suxors' I'll never know.
I'm not condemning you for being a java coder that has a preference for eclipse. I do have news for you though: Not all programming is java. Not all programming is done in eclipse. Eclipse is not the perfect solution for all programming tasks.
How's about you introduce a little gray into your life instead of the strict black/white diet you appear to subscribe to?
You need to read up on events my friend.
The answer to all of your stated problems are in proper knowledge of events.
They are not even remotely the same.
Think design vs build.
Are we talking programmers or designers?
If someone is interested in designing software, VS is a suitable abstraction point to be introduced to. If someone is interested in programming, this is just plain wrong, period.
ALL programmers need to be introduced to language first and formost. If they aren't, well are they really being trained to be programmers?
VS is a horrible starting point for learning how to program.
VS is a wonderful starting point for learning how to design software.
Besides, this is nothing new. Think of how many 'programmers' that are out there that couldn't code themselves out of a box because they learned how to 'code' using VB6. It's not that they aren't good at what they do, it's that they have learned how to design, now how to program.
Pick your profession, then pick the appropriate tools.
Incredible juxtaposition of disability and technology, if you haven't seen it, it is highly recommended: It's All Gone Pete Tong
Where's the hot coffee? That'd get me to at least download Sims2 and give it a whirl! ;)
I think the correct term would be meth, not crack.
Either way, it is scary that your comment would be concidered funny. Meth is not funny. Neither is Crack. There is no bright side to either. They are killers plain and simple.
And yes, I do have a sense of humor.
The simple act of taking something that exists, but sucks, and making something similar that actually works, and well, would most certainly fall under the category of innovating.
Holy fearmongering for +5 insightful batman!
Hint: Who the hell's forcing this down your throat. Don't like it? Don't use it.
Hint 2: Like this is anything new fer chrikeys sake!
And for my other post, sure, you don't _have_ to pay for xbox live to play halo, but as was my point, people _do_ pay for xbox live to play halo.
I'm quite sure of what I'm talking about. I think the better question is are you listening?
Ehh? I thought Halo proved the exact opposite.
Which has to be expected anywhere there is a reasonably sized gathering of people. The only way to avoid that is to avoid gatherings of people.
One way to do this is to head off into the woods on your own.
Another more familiar one around here is to lock yourself in a room and filter your contact with the world through a computer.
My point being, it's good to get out in the real world, with the real people, poseurs and non poseurs that they may be.
Apparently there is something fundamentally wrong with partying for a week.
Though I fail to see what it is.
Looks to me like a few tens of thousands of people had a great time for a week. And yet all we can find to do is criticise.
Me thinks you all need to take a freaking vacation.
It is a very neat experience to go there, especially for the kids. (Don't take your merc or bimmer though, you'll be pissed at the monkeys if you do ;)
However, it's also sad and depressing in a way. It's certainly better than seeing them cooped up in cages at a zoo, but at the same time, it is not a natural environment.
For true re-introduction of these species in North America, we would absolutely _have_ to provide an enourmous amount of space for a proper reserve to have any chance of these animals being able to exist 'in the wild'. IE, independant of reliance on humans to survive at the basic level.
Another point to be made is that we do have mega-fauna in North America that I would like to give this chance to well before I would want to see us importing animals from other continents. The North American mega-fauna that went extinct here is NOT the same as the mega-fauna that currently exists in other parts of the world.
It would be wonderful to have a massive wild reserve in North America where Grizzlies, Wolves, Buffalo and numerous other endangered North American species could actually exist in their natural state devoid of human pressure.
Um, check amazon.
They beat you to the punch, a long time ago now.
Not to sound like an ass...
but who gives a fuck about Americans like YOU.
Lets bomb you and shoot you and kill you off.
Would be nice to cure America of all instances of assholes like you, and everywhere else in the world you've infected.
(BTW, you most certainly do infect foreign countries, the asshole Americans that is)
You give Americans a bad name.
Go right ahead. Have fun with that.
Google didn't ban CNet from fuck all.
How are you people getting the idea that CNet has been banned from the worlds largest search engine? That statement has absolutele NO basis in fact.
You'd best look at your 'facts' in a different light before you start looking at Google in a different light.
Would you mind if I shot you to prove that murder is wrong?
CNet went about this entirely the wrong way.
Instead of opening discussion about this, they chose to target Schmidt directly, and worse, personally.
Did he retaliate by posting personal and family information about employees at CNet? No. I'm sure it would have never even crossed his mind.
Just as it would never actually cross my mind to shoot someone.
Lets deal with the criminals, not with grandstanding about 'what if'.
You need some better perspective. This has nothing to do with Google.
See my other posts in this thread that explain exactly what I mean.
That requires some context to get what you are implying.
I'm talking the power that the internet gives ALL of us. Not Google or CNet specifically, but ALL of us.
CNet chose to not act responsibly with their power to use the internet. Eric Schmidt is offended by that, and in my opinion, rightly so.
Google did not invent the internet.
Google did not invent searching.
Google is not the only presence on the internet.
Google is not the only search engine on the internet.
How is this all Googles fault?
I agree that there is an issue to be discussed here, but it's about personal responsibility and accountability. Not about a particular company.
Yes, that is the point of the story, sort of, except CNet washed it's hands of providing any sort of reasonable answer and instead attempts to create a problem, and then lay blame for said problem at the feet of Google, while using it's CEO to make an example.
CNet missed the boat.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I'll expound upon it now:
With great power comes great responsibility.
We ALL now have great power, NOT just google as CNet would lead you to believe. (That is what the internet provides ALL of us)
Thus, we ALL have great responsibility, INCLUDING CNet.
CNet washed it's hands of taking ANY responsibility.
The other option is to get rid of the internet.
Which view would you like to take?